"We’re within an inch of war almost every day," said Leon Panetta at a recent congressional hearing: he was talking about war with North Korea, but then went on to speak about other regions where the threat of conflict keeps him up at night, naming Iran, Syria, and indeed the entire Middle East as the source of his insomnia.

Even if we weren’t bankrupt, it is hard to see how a cost-benefit analysis can justify this level of US intervention abroad. We spend more on the military than all other nations on earth combined, and the only thing it’s gotten us has been some pretty consequential blowback and a mountain of unsustainable debt. So what’s the upside?

Let’s look at the North Korean example, which provoked Panetta’s revealing comment in the first place. Here is a country that is still technically at war with the US and its South Korean neighbor, after more than sixty years, and can hardly feed its own people. The food aid we regularly ship to them has been cut off, in part due to the recent missile launch. Sure, the launch was a failure, but that doesn’t matter: the point being that only the US and its allies have the right to needlessly provoke the rest of the world by saber-rattling as loudly as possible. We still have to punish them – even though they have no capacity to attack the US mainland, and are unlikely to acquire the technology to do so. Sure, they can always attack South Korea, where we – still! – have some 20,000 troops stationed. Yet what is the real purpose of our troop presence there? These soldiers are for all intents and purposes being held hostage by the North Koreans, whose periodic antics cause Panetta so much heartburn. So why keep them there?

We have more troops in Western Europe, including nuclear weapons – to what purpose? Are we expecting Joe Stalin to rise from the grave and lead the Red Army in a ghostly attack on the Free World?

The US presence in these regions was originally justified on the grounds of "defense": we had to defend South Korea against the North and the Chinese, who were supposedly intent on extending the Communist empire into the entire peninsula. Likewise in Europe, the threat of an ever-expanding Soviet empire, which has already swallowed up Eastern Europe, cast its dark shadow over the Western half of the continent. Never mind that in both cases, we practically handed our enemies the means and the motivation to expand their fiefdoms: history buffs might recall that during the Second World War we were allied with the Communists, not only in the European theater but also in the Far East, where our diplomats were friendly to Mao and hostile to the Kuomintang. After getting rid of Japanese imperialism by means of a few well-placed nukes, we found ourselves confronted by another even more threatening menace from our former "allies," the Chinese and the Russians. In Europe, no sooner had FDR handed over the Eastern half of the continent to Stalin at Yalta then his successor, a Kansas City haberdasher, launched an all-out effort to stop the threat we ourselves had unleashed.

Another fact to remember: all these supposedly "defensive" actions inevitably took on an offensive character. NATO, which still exists in spite of the non-existence of the Soviet enemy it was designed to fight, is not only fighting in Afghanistan, it is now trying to expand into Georgia, and the Caucasus region, with "partnerships" for the ex-Soviet "republics" deemed sufficiently anti-Russian. The US troop presence in South Korea is viewed not just as a check on the North but also on China, which looks askance at the presence of so many American troops so close to their homeland.

This is what it means to be an empire, as opposed to a republic: when the latter is forced to go to war in order to defend itself, it withdraws after the battle is over and the peace is won. Not so with the former, which is always pushing the frontiers of empire outward.

Like all government programs, imperialism never lets go: it never retreats, not even to retrench. Ending the vast outlay of funds and other resources we dispatch to our overseas clients is just as impossible – unthinkable! – as ending, say, Social Security or the Export-Import Bank. Too many jobs, livelihoods, and careers are at stake, and the constituency for keeping the gravy train flowing is far louder and more militant than those few who point out that not only does the emperor have no clothes but his empire has no money.

A day hardly passes without the threat of war casting its dark shadow over Washington, D.C. But look at it this way: for the Beltway boys, war is not a threat but an opportunity – a means to expand the empire, line their pockets and the pockets of their friends, and bask in the momentary elation of a very short-lived "victory."

201203971645 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2Fjustin%2F2012%2F04%2F19%2Fproblems-of-empire%2FProblems+of+Empire2012-04-20+06%3A00%3A24Justin+Raimondohttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2F%3Fp%3D2012039716 to “Problems of Empire”

Okay, a novel notion. These United States of America secedes from Washington, D.C.. Just cut the silly freaks loose and set them adrift on Chesapeake Bay, all the while waving the grifters a fond farewell. Every last corrupt congressman/woman, bureaucrat, think-tanker, Israel firster warmongering war on Iran, senator, media pundit sucking hind teat, and/or whomever then call it a day.
Amerika could NOT possibly be any worse off than we are at present.

"the Iraqi exile groups who tricked us into supporting a disastrous invasion and occupation?"

The Iraqi exile groups didn't trick any of the people who call the shots in this country. That's just a canard to shift "blame." Those people knew exactly what they were doing and what they wanted and they got it.

The people who call the shots in the United States did themselves trick the American people, using, in part, the Iraqi exile groups.

"What are we getting out of provoking Iran beyond the limits of human endurance? Why are we even thinking about intervening in Syria, when we can see the horrendous results of our support for the Libyan rebels – and the Iraqi exile groups who tricked us into supporting a disastrous invasion and occupation?"

Who is the "we"……… and Isn't our Mr. Raimondo forgetting the benefits these policies accrue to our No. 1 Welfare Queen and her quest to be a nuclear "player" on land which she has taken "without compensation" from the local folks who have lived on it for a thousand years,,,!!!

US has more than 700 military bases in more than 130 countries.Why are not US a republic?this is for America wants to impose her own "values"and her way of live everywhere.This mean in every other countries a bunch of 1% reaches servants convinced also about their values and their way and 99% of the globe population manipulated,indoctrinated.These are the reasons that Cuba ,North Korea,China (all along it is a kind of communist system) or an Islamic country are at one inch distance to be attacked this is the certitude which may start wars because "what is good for America should be good for everybody else".

This "situation" is an unmitigated disaster… Things are unraveling so quickly our government masters don't even feel the need to really lie all that much anymore…not even a concern in the world about what us peasants think…just an opaque "heads up" about 3 potential Nations we "could" go to war with at obscure Congressional sub-committee meetings…a "heads-up" from one set of government masters to another…and an implied: "I'll let you know which war(s) it is and how it turns out when it's over". Fantastic…

The Libya war wasn't "popular", ever…well, despite the fact 'we' didn't seem to even get any sort of formal announcement via an oval office, fireside chat, or any kind of "speech" what so ever before the US kicked off a Shock and Awe campaign against Libya…even after the fact, Obama decides to shrug his shoulders and say "it's non-hostilities"… Patently absurd, yes… But that's not even the best part: Congress decided to vote against the war in Libya, then a few hours later decided to continue funding it. The best thing about these "kinds" of votes is that as a member of Congress you get to play both sides of the fence…you were "for it before" you "were against it". For example:

If you are a member of the US Congress and decided to take the no vote on the war and the yes vote on the funding and a constituent takes you to task for the war in Libya…no problem.,,,say :"I voted against the war in Libya"… A different constituent just 5 minutes later takes you to task for not being more aggressive with respect to the war in Libya…no problem…just say "I voted to continue to fund the war in Libya, but ultimately the President is the Commander in Chief and decides how the military operates"…

See how great it is…you can't lose with this 'perfect' system? Isn't "democracy" grand? It's a "win win"…if you are a US member of Congress that is,,,

Well…at least we have "freedom of speech" left; however, we also have the "freedom" to find out (or in probably most cases "not" find out) that after exercising such "freedom of speech", the next day an FBI agent is shuffling through your trash and/or monitoring our phone calls, e-mail, internet usage (and gawd knows what else…shower cam??? 'we' may never even find out) for no apparent reasonable reason–in many cases an explanation cannot ever really be given, much less required in the first place… If one did ask why an FBI agent was curious about what was in your trash can, I guess theoretically the agent could answer: "it's 'non-hostilities'", laugh in your face, and proceed to walk away. Fantastic… "Freedom" in action.

Unfortunately, at the rate "we" seem to be going here, I wouldn't be shocked if that ("freedom of speech" that is) will be significantly and noticeably reduced relatively soon. Significant attempts have already started with the internet….

Oh well…nothing last forever. Just enjoy the ride while it lasts; however, I think it would be a grave mistake for anyone to hold onto, much less perpetuate (which is much…much…worse) the illusion we live in "freedom" (which I'm sure just about everyone here already assumes we do not); but not only are we not "free", we DO NOT live in a real "democracy"…"Jeffersonian", or otherwise for that matter, from what I can tell… And it's even getting to the point where our rules simply don't see the need to lie/hide this fact anymore because the feigned effort would just ultimately waste their precious time…

How about worrying about "democracy" in the US for a change Mr. Panetta; instead of the big bad Syrians who imminently threaten to take over the US and change our way of life…which is the source of your insomnia? Oh yeah…dumb question on my part…you are one of our "rulers"…why would you want to "shake things up"? That would just be silly…

"Ending the vast outlay of funds and other resources we dispatch is just as impossible-unthinkable-as ending say, Social Security……." Eliminating Social Security is a great idea, so long as the USG's overseas empire and bloated militarism budget are put on the chopping block first.

As one who believes in nullification and secession, I must admit your idea takes it to the next level! Cast the crooks, bought-and-paid-for hacks, warmongers, and other vermin who infest the District of Corruption adrift. Of course, I'd exempt the Doctors Paul–Representative Ron Paul and Senator Rand Paul.

"This is what it means to be an empire, as opposed to a republic: when the latter is forced to go to war in order to defend itself, it withdraws after the battle is over and the peace is won. Not so with the latter, which is always pushing the frontiers of empire outward."

This is a great comment, but don't you mean: "Not so with the "former," which is always pushing the frontiers of empire outward."

To me, it is ironic that Hayek wrote "the Road to Serfdom" with the idea in mind that going the way of socialism is guaranteed to produce serfdom, while the evidence now shows that it is the road of unbridled "free market capitalism" that leads to serfdom. What else can you imagine for America (and the other developed countries) in the future where the rich are super rich and everyone else lives in poverty? Can you imagine a bright future for those with low IQs (unless their Daddy happens to be GHW Bush); a future other than that of being a lackey for the rich – perhaps as a footman, a chamber-maid or as a gardner on the enormous estates of the wealthy. This kind of development came along at the end of the Roman Empire and persisted for nearly the next thousand years. This is America's future, also.
I grew up in the 1940s and 1950s and, trust me, America was a lot different than it is today. From the posts on this blog, today's Americans attitudes have become incredibly selfish with the chief goal of getting rich and to staying rich. Foreigners are just interlopers trying to steal "your pie". And corruption is now "just smart business".

"In Europe, no sooner had FDR handed over the Eastern half of the continent to Stalin at Yalta then his successor, a Kansas City haberdasher, launched an all-out effort to stop the threat we ourselves had unleashed."

Come on, the Soviets liberated eastern Europe from the Nazi jackboot, so it wasn't for FDR to give it away and the US/UK was quite willing to stand aside and let the Soviet Union finally destroy the Nazi regime in the Battle of Berlin thus avoiding substantial casualties. And don't forget that most of the countries in eastern Europe had fought alongside the Nazis against the Soviet Union so perhaps they deserved a bit of occupation.

As for the war against Japan, an argument can and has been made that the Soviet Union's declaration of war on Japan and the invasion of Manchuria and North Korea were just as influential on Japan's decision to surrender as the nuclear bombs dropped by the US and with the Soviet Union having liberated those Japanese colonies, it is a bit naive to expect them to hand them over to the US or it allies.

The simple way to do this would be for the several States to repudiate the debt of the United States. "That's on you, buddy, we had nothing to do with that." And take steps to ensure that their citizens were not held liable for it.

One more reason why the US needs these conflicts is that they don't want the hundreds of thousands of battle seasoned soldiers back in the homeland, for what jobs are waiting for them? Moreover, they might be a bit wild for comfort.

Yes and massive and amounts of lend lease aid from America and British and American bombers bombing Germany back into the stone age did nothing to help the Soviets. Nor did the North African or Italian campaigns I take it?

Was it not during the 40's that we set up internment camps for the Japanese and Germans? And those weren't foreigners but American citizens who weren't American enough I guess. Wasn't racial discrimination part of American law when you were growing up? And don't forget "operation wetback" that was 1954. That would never happen today. So I would say America was no warmer or fuzzier towards foreigners when you were growing up.

You need to elect another government – not the GOP/DEM Party. It's always the same when you vote for them. Maybe if certain states were to break off from the Washington tyranny, that might start the ball rolling..

They get control. The 9-11 attacks and to a lesser extent the 7-7 attacks have programed people in the so called free world to be so very afraid that we are willing to give up fundamental freedoms. Yesterday the European Parliament passed a law that will provide the US with personal data on European citizens not only traveling to the US but also traveling through US airspace.

Back in 1992 the Libertarian Party ran the numbers and concluded Social Security could be replaced with a much better alternative. Just sell off most federal property and use the money raised to buy a generous annuity for everyone age 40+. A large chunk of that federal property would, of course, include military bases rendered unnecessary by the dismantling of the empire.

Stalin himself said that "England provided the time, America the money, and Russia the blood" to defeat Germany. I think there is a good amount of truth to that. But destroying Germany was a group effort. By 1943 Germany had no chance of salvaging any kind of favorable outcome in the east. If Germany wasn't dealing with the logistics of a 2 front war in 43, then a 3 front war 44 on top of it's cities being destroyed by bombing then I think it's likely that the eastern war would have ended in a stalemate similar to the Korean or Iran Iraq war.

And I doubt the citizens of eastern Europe saw themselves as liberated. If they "deserved to be occupied" dose that mean Afghanistan deserves to be occupied simply because the Taliban provided sanctuary for Bin Laden 11 years ago?

"…These soldiers are for all intents and purposes being held hostage by the North Koreans, whose periodic antics cause Panetta so much heartburn…"
Ah, this makes no sense. How can a small nation, barely able to feed itself and kept alive only by having China at its back, be holding "hostage" soldiers stationed by the greatest military power in world history? If they are being held hostage, then it is by the U.S. Warfare State, which has refused to end the Korean War, despite having the opportunity to do so over the past two decades. That is who they work for, and they are likely working class boys who don't have little or no economic opportunity where they come from.

There isn't much left of U.S. power beyond its unprecedented military might. It has sacrificed almost all of its domestic industrial manufacturing, except for the military where it is by far and away tops in the world. The U.S. is not the economic giant it once was in the aftermath of World War II. More politically weak than ever, there is only one way it can regain some of that unprecedented economic dominance it once had. Get the brass knuckles of the Pentagon out and do it gangster style. The Libyan intervention is a good example of how Washington will go about this policy. Of course, once Washington has installed a compliant regime in a country it has taken, they will then try to shut the Chinese out of the markets of that country.

Your comment is pretty spot on, but isn't it ironic that we would try and shut the Chinese out of the markets of our puppet states while at the same time relying on them to keep financing our ever increasing debt. Your right though, Im sure it dose make perfect sense to our modern imperial elite.

WAR IS HELL, UNLESS YOU ARE A MILITARY CONTRACTOR LIVING A LAVISH LIFESTYLE BY SUCKING THE LIFEBLOOD OUT OF OUR COUNTRY. ITS TIME TO DE-FANG THE CRIMINAL SOCIOPATHS DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY AND LOOTING THE TREASURE WITH PERPETUAL WARS, AND MAKING US ALL, MORE UNSAFE AND HATED AROUND THE WORLD.

I've never quite understood why Britain didn't declare war on the Soviet Union as well as Germany; after all, they both attacked Poland and Britain's whole pretense for going to war to 'protect' Poland, unless……. ( /cue scary conspiracy theory music ) there was already a backroom deal to ally with the Soviets at a later date to overthrow Germany. I've never understood why, if Communism was perceived to be such a huge threat, Britain- and later, the US- didn't HELP Germany take the Soviets out once and for all. Of course they didn't predict the Cold War, but still the question remains. I daresay if that had been the turn of events we'd have a much different world today, and probably a much more peaceful one.

But, as the Bard said, the past is but prologue- and we're adlibbing our scenes at this point because we went off-script a long time ago.

JSD,
You are like all sophists – all counter argument and no interest in the truth. I had tried to enlarge the argument by including the attitudes of modern conservatives to not only other races but also to the poor (who may as well be another race as far as the conservatives see things), but you insist upon sticking to a format that allows you to score a few cheap points. Yes, you are right – we set up internment camps for the Japanese in 1942 (and some German-Americans were imprisoned). But after we won WWII, all of that animosity went away. GIs were marrying Japanese and German "war brides" and no-one got hateful about it. We did the Marshall Plan, and we sent experts to rebuild Japan, whose manufacturing talents soon exceeded ours. I don't remember "Operation Wetback", but I do remember the "Braceros Program", which was a reasonable compromise between the needs of Mexicans for wages and "border security".
Yes, America has always been emotionally racist but it has never been as cold-blooded racist as it is today.

We can play this one up game forever. Im sure these experts rebuilt Japan purely out of the goodness of their hearts and weren't just looking to set up shop and expand business into the newly occupied country. Personally I think the Japanese rebuilt Japan. Sure some Japanese girls married GIs, but is that really shocking that a girl in a ruined country might marry a half decent American as a way out? After all, plenty of Germans had war brides in Europe during the war. Im a cynic, I say we put the effort into rebuilding Germany as a way of competition with Soviet eastern Germany. You bring up Braceros, I bring up wet back. You say Americans are cold blooded racist, I ask why then are we a #1 destination for nonwhites? If we are racist devils I think nonwhites would be fleeing.

Sorry, being stubborn another point just occurred to me and if I don't say it it will bug me. But today lots of American soldiers still marry women from overseas, including Asians. And to my knowledge nobody hates them for it. Even in the this dark time of violent American racism. Thats actually exactly how I met my wife in Europe.

The several states would also have to tell Rome-on-the-Potomac "Oh, and by the way, you'll be getting no tax revenues, be they income or any other kind, from our residents anymore. And should you try to use armed force to collect said taxes, you can expect the state militia, erroneously called "the 'National Guard,'" along with any armed, able-bodied citizens who wish to augment them, to be on hand to send you packing back to hell.

Social Security is a transfer program, a massive Ponzi scheme that would see those running it locked away for life if they weren't agents of the Regime. Yes, it provides "benefits" to some "real Americans" – at the expense of other "real Americans. But of course you already knew that…

One more reason why the US needs these conflicts is that they don't want the hundreds of thousands of battle seasoned soldiers back in the homeland, for what jobs are waiting for them?

I assume from your post that you don't live in Amerika. If you did, the answer to your "what jobs are waiting for them?" would be answered with painful obviousness every time you were pulled over for a minor traffic violation and faced with a skin-headed, angry, PTSD-addled, steroid-juiced "law enforcement" thug. That's the (ahem) "job" that most of these creatures are being directed into once brought back home. Iraqghanistan was just a training ground for their mission against the Staatsbuerger back here in the Vaterland.

I'm only showing you that the nominal or so-called leaders of our former country just did something that rulers of an Empire (the Nazi Empire) often did, only Hitler didn't watch his Empire assassinate people on live secure TV.

Now, here's what I strongly suggest for the "action" to confront this Empire, and I've also included the WHYs of how this WILL WORK.

First, I like the non-violent technique of simply 'calling-out'
the Empire as an Empire, not a democracy.

After 'calling-out' the Empire for what it is, I like the 2nd
stage of proving it with a simple Empire-Index that I've developed, and with the particulars of this current Empire acting like an Empire, with proof (like the invading of countries, drone killings, and sick pleasures of Empire power like the picture above).

Third, the steps of broadly “calling-out” and then proving
that it is an Empire will get many more of the 99% discussing, and
thinking about it actually being an Empire —- which will lead to millions of discussion of average Americans somewhat like this, “You're right, Harry, it certainly smells like an Empire to me.” “Yes, Joe, I talked with Bill and all the guys at work and everyone agrees, we've got a serious problem with this damn Empire posing as a phony democracy”.

Fourth, non-violently confronting the now fully discussed,
understood, and proven Empire, by using massive "Occupy the
Empire" demonstrations — everywhere, all over the Empire; in
places like Wall Street, Washington, Boston, Chicago, the media, the
schools and colleges, the Pentagon, and all the places that the Empire currently
occupies to control us and our whole country everywhere — will
empower 'action' targeted specifically and uniformly “Against
Empire” [Michael Parenti].

And fifth, the real benefit is that although Empire is the single
target of this 'action' — Empire itself is the proximate CAUSE of
all the various 'symptom problems' that we are now being divided,
distracted, and disabled by the Empire in addressing too many
'symptom problems' to confront the core pathology of Empire itself.

Since the Empire is already Occupying the whole country and all
its cities, financial, political, social, media, educational, and
military locations — we need to "Occupy the Empire" to
stop it from occupying us.

Luckily, since the current Occupy movement is already occupying
most of these sites, all we have to do is declare that in
occupying these sites and elements of our society we are "Occupying
the Empire".

"To me, it is ironic that Hayek wrote "the Road to Serfdom" with the idea in mind that going the way of socialism is guaranteed to produce serfdom, while the evidence now shows that it is the road of unbridled "free market capitalism" that leads to serfdom."

Robert Brager,
True, I called them "free markets" – you and I both know that there are no "free markets" in America. They are not "free markets" they are monopolies or crony capitalist markets. The "free" part is, of course, bullcrap. But sometimes you have to call something by the same name it calls itself. (just like calling Mitt Romney an entrepreneur as he calls himself versus his true designation which should be "vulture".) If someone thinks that there are "free markets" in America, he just needs to take a notion to start his own bank or even just buy a pushcart and start selling cabbages on the streets and he will soon be disabused of that peculiar notion.

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].